Statutory remedy under SARFAESI must be pursued before writ relief where secured creditor measures are challenged.

A writ petition should not be entertained where the SARFAESI Act provides an effective statutory remedy. After the secured account was classified as a non-performing asset, measures were initiated under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), and the borrower also failed to comply with the one-time settlement terms. In that setting, Section 17 furnished the proper remedy against the secured creditor's measures, so the High Court ought not to have bypassed the statutory framework or directed instalment payments in writ jurisdiction. The High Court's order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and granting relief despite the availability of an effective statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The secured account had been declared a non-performing asset, proceedings had been initiated under Section 13(2) followed by Section 13(4) of the Act, and the borrower had also failed to comply with the terms of the one-time settlement. In that situation, a remedy under Section 17 of the Act was available against the secured creditor's measures. The High Court ought not to have bypassed the statutory mechanism and directed instalment payments in a writ proceeding.

Conclusion: The writ petition should not have been entertained and the High Court's order was unsustainable.

---